Q7

[daniel]

Critique my thought process on the answer choices for this question, if you please.

A) the passage is not attempting to search for a compromise; additionally, this answer choice focuses too narrowly on voir dire. Eliminate.

B) Although the passage does reference the effects of mass, particularly in regard to the expansion of mass media, the passage does not merely call attention to the problem. Additionally, I think court proceedings is probably too broad, since the passage focuses more on the effect of mass media on jurors and jury selection. Eliminate.

C) This answer choice seems attractive to me, because paragraphs 2 and 3 discuss the techniques used by judges for ensuring impartiality. But, the passage doesn't appear to be directed specifically to judges, nor does it suggest that "new ways" need to be found. Eliminate.

D) The passage presents the views of several critics, but there is no debate here; the author doesn't against any claim advanced by these critics, and seems to agree with them in general. Eliminate.

E) Lines 46-49 confirm this is the correct choice; additionally, the purpose stated in the answer choice is reflected in the wording of the first sentences of paragraphs 2 and 3 ("remedy for partiality" and "minimize partiality").

(I was able to eliminate A, B, and D very quickly, but ended up vacillating between C and E).

[a3friedm]

Good work!

As for (C) the author never really tries to encourage the judges to do anything. All we know about the judges are that many of them are convinced that the techniques of voir dire and changing venues work.

This passage is really cool because it's a great way to practice Manhattans "scale" technique. In this case the scale is comprised of the critics, the author, and most judges.

Critics claim the impartiality techniques don't work (line 18)
Many judges claim they do work (17)
and the Author who argues that impartiality doesn't equate to ignorance, but diversity. The author's view opposes the critics, and is compatible with the judges. Rather than find new ways to ensure impartial jurors we're looking at the concept of impartiality differently. It sounds like once homed in on the "new ways" which is awesome.

[theanswer21324]

Hey guys

I'm not sure why (E) is the correct answer here. How does this article argue for a change in how courts address the problem of impartiality? If anything, it is arguing that there should NOT be a major change in what courts are doing. It basically shoots down a few remedies in paragraph 2, and ultimately circles back in the final paragraph to a conclusion that courts should keep doing what they've been doing. There appears to be no change being argued for: just that people should keep on deliberating because there is no way we can limit the media's influence.

Can someone point out what is wrong with this thought process?

[ericha3535]

The Answer 21324,
I believe you have not fully comprehended the passage.
Here is the breakdown:

p1: introduces the problem.
P2 and p3: traditional ways to deal with bias
p4: this is the most important paragraph. It is saying that traditional way is INEFFECTIVE. If you read L47, it says "oh countries like canada and Great B. have eliminated the traditional ways. Good stuff. But is it enough?"

Then the author proposes something: Unlike what the traditional ways have been done (which is trying to MINIMIZE the effects of mass communication), author advocates people to be exposed to the mass communication as much as possible (thus MAXIMIZE such effects).
Why?

L 51 says: Impartial -> composed of people with knowledge.
This is like a principle that says that impartiality, which is what court wants, requires mass communication.

Thus, what author proposes is a change the way court deals with partiality.

Hope this helps.